Overall Villain Submission Thoughts

[Zombieneighbours]

magdalena thiriet wrote:

I do agree on that it was a bit sad to see so many falling for the same mistakes last year's villain round suffered...

Zombieneighbours, in the discussion about Malgana you compared her to One Ring: even if the head was thrown in the well someone might sooner or later pick it up and Malgana's story would continue...the problem with this scenario is that PCs will not be there to see this story development.
If Frodo had dumped One Ring to the sea, it is true that the story of the ring does not end there. Which is all fine and proper if your character is One Ring. If it is Frodo, it will not affect you anymore (except for maybe occasional pangs of guilt that you have just postponed the problem and not dealt with it). That is, unless you pull some kind of lame storytelling trick where the next day Frodo and Gandalf go to a fish restaurant and the fish Frodo starts to eat Has Swallowed The Ring...
I consider myself to be quite story-oriented player and DM, but one thing I have (almost) learned is that if the PCs don't see the story, it is wasted. And several villain entries did have this problem.

Now, if Malgana had been done as, for example, head which controls a number of minions who actively pursue to put her back together...and maybe as an adventure hook get PCs to find the hand, which has some nifty magic powers but makes the PCs target of Malgana's attention...that would be a villain. There is some nifty Rod-of-Seven-Parts quality with creepy details in Malgana entry, which does make it interesting, and even if Kevin Carter would drop from the contest, I hope he keeps on writing stuff, but to get my vote he should have presented those ideas better to get my vote. Talent but not yet superstar, IMO. (and Kevin, remember that you are not allowed to comment this yet :) )

Just because they are not there to see the story develop first hand does not mean they cant see the effects of it. The Dm can do something else with the players for a level and then slowly feed in the reprocusions of dumping the head. It might initially be defeat at the hands of the goblin hoards, retreat and massacre of the local villages thanks to not having the witch's infomation. Later it might be that the twist wood witcheds new minions are sent to kill their families as the Witches vengence for not helping her and so on. She has the ability to be used as a recuring villain even if the Players don't go with the first option.

[brock]

Something else bugged me about the villains - the names. I thought I'd post my thoughts to see if it was just me:

Sharina Legendsinger : Hero
The Diamond Dragon : Hero
Blah Aristocratic Mage : Generic person
Pacifist Poet-Priest of Shelyn : Hero
Count Falconbridge, Blah : Generic person
Veddic, Master of the Codex : 'Vedic' therefore Indian Yoga priest

I'd planned to approach my voting by seeing if the name grabbed me, and then reading the entries that did until I had four solid 'YES' results. With 1/3 of the entries out from the start since they didn't sound like villains, I didn't get four hits from the remainder. So I went back and read through everything.

It's a shame, because I really wanted to pick 4 candidates that had me sold after reading the name and the first line of description. Ironically, the only entry that did that to me lost it's way shortly after!

[magdalena thiriet]

Zombieneighbours wrote:

Just because they are not there to see the story develop first hand does not mean they cant see the effects of it. The Dm can do something else with the players for a level and then slowly feed in the reprocusions of dumping the head. It might initially be defeat at the hands of the goblin hoards, retreat and massacre of the local villages thanks to not having the witch's infomation. Later it might be that the twist wood witcheds new minions are sent to kill their families as the Witches vengence for not helping her and so on. She has the ability to be used as a recuring villain even if the Players don't go with the first option.

There is good stuff there, however as I mentioned I would have put this as the first option, or at barest minimum at least discuss this scenario in the entry: NPC minions of the head who are actively trying to do something instead of railroading the PCs to be the minions.

The entry had ideas, it had imagery, but it suffered seriously from poor execution and would require a massive rewrite and switch of focus.
I do hope it is one of the Top 16 though, and that Kevin will shape up. And same goes for many others.

Frankly, I agree with many that having a deadline within three weekdays resulted in rushed entries...

[Paul Worthen]

Svevenka wrote:

Here are some more statistics about the judges' voting:

Thanks, Svevenka! I was going to compile the same data on my lunch break today. You've saved me some time! Which I can now spend tightening up the writing on my villain.

[Zombieneighbours]

magdalena thiriet wrote:

Zombieneighbours wrote:

Just because they are not there to see the story develop first hand does not mean they cant see the effects of it. The Dm can do something else with the players for a level and then slowly feed in the reprocusions of dumping the head. It might initially be defeat at the hands of the goblin hoards, retreat and massacre of the local villages thanks to not having the witch's infomation. Later it might be that the twist wood witcheds new minions are sent to kill their families as the Witches vengence for not helping her and so on. She has the ability to be used as a recuring villain even if the Players don't go with the first option.

There is good stuff there, however as I mentioned I would have put this as the first option, or at barest minimum at least discuss this scenario in the entry: NPC minions of the head who are actively trying to do something instead of railroading the PCs to be the minions.

The entry had ideas, it had imagery, but it suffered seriously from poor execution and would require a massive rewrite and switch of focus.
I do hope it is one of the Top 16 though, and that Kevin will shape up. And same goes for many others.

Frankly, I agree with many that having a deadline within three weekdays resulted in rushed entries...

I think there where mistakes in the presentation certainly, the adventure hook was to specific, but i dont think it was rail roaded, just highly detailed for one of the possible paths the adventure might take.

[Steven Helt]

Some things I want to throw out for the discussion:

If any one thinks I am the meanest guy here, or full of sour grapes, let me know. That's not my intention, and if I owe an apology to one of the contestants, I'll do it.

Are we (am I) being careful to separate "this is not a good villain" from "my villain would have been better". I believe so, but it bears thinking on. I don't want to make enemeis for next year (though hopefully I won't qualify for the contest next year), and I don't want to be wrong. But I do demand a high standard, as it's Superstar, and not Mediocrestar.

With those things in mind, I am incredibly disappointed so far in the villain entries. It's like no one read the villain round from last year and learned those lessons. It's like contestants forgot they were designing for an RP game. What if your adventure proposal has to center on your villain - a bone devil who sits on plinths and "eschews base acts of evil, while his spiritual evil grows." What does that even mean?

"The severed head that could do nothing" by and RPG Superstar.

I hope the judges and contestants are taking this feedback to heart. I love Paizo, Golarion, and the contest. I like many of the contestants, even the ones with poor villain entries. I want the rest of this contest to be as captivating and educational as the last one.

Right now, I have to breathe slowly after every villain and separate the angst of not being in this round from the confusion of folks making the same crucial mistakes as last year. Only making worse version of those mistakes in greater numbers.

Are we being firm but fair? I think so...but a few WOW entries would really make me feel better.

[Matthew Morris]

Stephen,

I'll take most any critism, including yours :P I can't speak for 31 other people, but I've really been looking at this as a learning experience. I promise, if(when!) I'm not scurrying for a statblock, I'm going to work up a long reply.

I'll even use paragraphs and spell check to format, Just for Wolfgang :-)

[Steven Helt]

magdalena thiriet wrote:

Frankly, I agree with many that having a deadline within three weekdays resulted in rushed entries...

I disagree. Copntestants had 20 days to work on villains and then three days to tailor their entries to the specifics rules, which turned out to be "Describe your villain in 500 words." Same as last year, only easier.

I had 2 villains almost completely finished when I found out it didn't matter. To hear people didn't know what to expect again implies they didn't examine last year's contest.

Being a working designer means juggling projects and being prepared with good ideas you can furnish on demand. At least, that's what I hear, since I am not a working designer today.

Moreover, the flaws of some of these villains can't be excused by "Didn't have enough time." Some of the, like the pacifist priest, were nonvillainous and nonexciting from conception.

I can see forgiving some faulty writing or an adventure hook that's not fully developed, but an entry that is flawed from start to presentation.

[Chad Bartlett]

Casey Smith wrote:

Oh thanks!

Paul Worthen wrote:

Thanks, Svevenka!

You're welcome! :)

[Count_Rugen]

magdalena thiriet wrote:

Frankly, I agree with many that having a deadline within three weekdays resulted in rushed entries...

I wholeheartedly agree. 3 days wouldn't have been bad if it'd been over a weekend, but 3 work days?? I'm a single parent. Had I been in round 1 and won, after 8 hours of work, a couple hours of family time, miscellaneous, etc... I would have had probably 1 or 2 hours a night to work on this.

I dunno. I think there's a lot of blame to go around...but I do think 3 days during a work week was a poor choice for round 2. For round 3? Sure, why not.

[Lilith]

Core wrote:

A lot of them simply said 'rewrite me' as I read them. Probably a result of giving them 3 days in the middle of work week (which is pure silliness).

I would say it's not silliness, it's preparing them for the harsh reality of freelancing.

[Neil Spicer]

Lilith wrote:

I would say it's not silliness, it's preparing them for the harsh reality of freelancing.

I would agree. One industry standard for a designer is the ability to turn out around one "module unit" (i.e., 32,000 words) in a single month. That translates to a little over 1,000 words per day. And all of them have to weave together many complex elements (e.g., a villain, a plot, encounters, new monsters, a new spell, a new feat, new magic items, etc.). We were asked to create a single 500-word villain, and given 3 days to do it. That's not unreasonable.

But that's just my two-cents,
--Neil

[Matthew Morris]

Lilith wrote:

Core wrote:

A lot of them simply said 'rewrite me' as I read them. Probably a result of giving them 3 days in the middle of work week (which is pure silliness).

I would say it's not silliness, it's preparing them for the harsh reality of freelancing.

Which is why I likely wouldn't ever freelance. I prefer to avoid reality. :P

That and I know it's easier to snark than produce.

I make no qualms about the fact that I had three days to put pen to paper. When you read my posts that I wasn't expecting it, it's not me being snarky (for once) or humble. I did not expect to get anywhere close to the top 32 Once I saw I was in it, I dove in, lucky for me work's slow. I may have failed, and my work may be sub-par to what Stephen or Daigle or anyone else would have put out, but I would be a bad person to not try at all.

Would I like to contribute more than snarky comments, to create rather than critique? Yes, or I'd not have bothered to enter. Do I have a pang of envy when I see a werecabbage or a (contributor) tag? Yes, I'd love to be part of that body. I live, I learn I move on.

Disclaimer: Since text strips context, I want to make perfectly clear. I'm not ranting, or making excuses. I'm not mad at anyone, and not at me. *shrug*

[Neil Spicer]

Matthew Morris wrote:

Which is why I likely wouldn't ever freelance. I prefer to avoid reality....That and I know it's easier to snark than produce.

I'm confused. Why would anyone enter such a contest if they didn't want (and weren't able to commit) to writing an adventure module for Paizo? And...ultimately...gain additional opportunities to freelance on other assignments for Paizo products? By your own words, it sounds like you entered the contest on a lark...never assuming you'd make it...and not really 100% dedicated to going after it if you did. Is that what you're saying?

Matthew Morris wrote:

Would I like to contribute more than snarky comments, to create rather than critique? Yes, or I'd not have bothered to enter. Do I have a pang of envy when I see a werecabbage or a (contributor) tag? Yes, I'd love to be part of that body. I live, I learn I move on.

Just my opinion: But a person can't really want those things (or shouldn't) if they're not prepared and commited to taking on what's required to get there. Otherwise, you're potentially taking an opportunity away from someone who is prepared and commited to do the same, but whose magic item just didn't grab the judges in 200 words or less.

--Neil

[Paul Worthen]

Lilith wrote:

I would say it's not silliness, it's preparing them for the harsh reality of freelancing.

Agreed. I spent probably about 4 hours on writing my round 2 offering, not including some "thinking time" during breaks at work. I think my writing is solid, even if my concept was a bit weak, the judges seemed to agree. If you can't get 500 words looking sharp in 4 hours, I think you'll have a hard time as a professional writer. And that's what freelancers are. They're professionals, and their work should be of that quality.

[Stefan Schulz]

3 days was tough - but fair. I would have liked to have at least one weekend day in there, but I won't complain. One thing round 2 alone has already taught me is how much time I spend editing and re-editing. I need to get better from the get-go.

[Montalve]

i agree with the numbers, for me there were 2 villains that were exceptional, around 6 that i really liked, lots of maybes... but definitivelies quite a few meh!... but more importantly... there were at least 4 where from reading them you can ask... "and the villian is... where?"

but i do understand its a short time, even if it more than fair for professional writers and freelancers... still I desire thebest of lucks to everyone who is in the 32s

[Montalve]

kid america wrote:

I would like to thank Paizo for creating the RPG Superstar contest. It is an unprecedented opportunity for home brew game designers and amateur wordsmiths to compete for a wonderful dream. A big round of applause to all those who were brave enough to enter. A special congratulation to all my fellow competitors on making it this far in the competition.

not unpresendented... but yes very very welcomed :)

a few years ago White Wolf sent a similar contest to write fiction for their game Vampire: The Requiem... I should think something somewhere is telling me I am not good enough for not passing the3 1st stage of 2 of 2 contests :P

still I suppose time to practice for Superstar 2010... I didn't saw what the people in 2008 did... but 2009 has teached me alot

[Matthew Morris]

Neil, I didn't enter on 'a lark' I entered to get my stuff torn to shreds by professionals (wow, be careful what you wish for). I also occasionally buy a lottery ticket. I figured the odds were about the same, maybe a bit better for the lottery.

I've DMed for years, both pre-made stuff and my own creations. I am deadly serious about the contest, now. And put my best effort into Father Avon.

I hate deadlines, but can work within them, I do every month for the 'real world'. I now hate word count limits, but it remains to be seen if I can work in them well enough. I'm working on Dungeon Djinn to try to map with it.

I have posted stuff on boards before for critique, and gotten as much feedback as President Obama did for trying to walk in a window. So I concluded my work is below the standards of my peers, or relies too much on knowing Matthew Morris, the person, not Matthew Morris the name at the end of the article.

If, by some intervention of the Divine (like meteors hitting 35 other people all around the planet, simultaniously) I were to win this, I'd work on the best project I could. I actually do have Father Avon statted up for example. And I am serious about taking notes of most every critique. I give the 'ugh, it's psionics' critques the attention they deserve, but that's a discussion for after the voting.

The 'wouldn't freelance' part was snark. You give me a job, I do it the best I can.

So please, don't think that I'm blowing this off. I respect the hobby, and the people whose products I buy, to do so.

[Lisa Stevens]

Core wrote:

Making the following round based off of this round compounds the problem. We are essentially voting on the same round twice, since the initial ideas will sell votes, not a dry stat-block. I can write down the names of four of the entries now and practically guarantee they will be in round 4 because of that. Also if they are forced to use the same villain in round 5, it would give them a huge advantage there as well.

We have a cunning plan to make this issue not as much of a problem. Stay tuned!

-Lisa

[Drakli]

Core wrote:

Making the following round based off of this round compounds the problem. We are essentially voting on the same round twice, since the initial ideas will sell votes, not a dry stat-block. I can write down the names of four of the entries now and practically guarantee they will be in round 4 because of that. Also if they are forced to use the same villain in round 5, it would give them a huge advantage there as well.

This is a very good point, and I admit I hadn't thought of it already. I don't want to say that the next two rounds are invalidated, but people who got off on a lukewarm step are going to have an uphill battle on in from here. The 5th round may mix things up a bit, since a lair has to be both sexy and work well, where a stat block just has to be functional with a villain who's already sold.

EDIT:Aaand wow! Now that's what I call responsive. Thanks, Lisa!

[Steven Helt]

I ust sort of think of the two as very different rounds. This round, we look at writing and imagination, and storytelling. Next round, we look at how right on a contestant can be with thier mechanics. A great stat block with some rules finesse can certainly win over folks who thought the concept was bland to start with.

It's also a great way to reward designers who can put it all together ion a short amount of time. I'm sure lots of us designed villains with neat tricks in the stat blocks in mind (not just a druid, but a desert druid. Not just that, but a slight twist in class features, or something tricky out of the SRD, plus a kit and a spell selection that really keeps the mood.)

Someone who has flawless math, interesting choices, and IMPROVES their villain concept with killer mechanics. That's what will win my vote next round. Plus, of course, whatever treachery the mighty Paizonians throw at you.

[Winterwalker]

Put me in for a twist of, not being able to design your own stat block and getting assigned a competitor's monster.

Kind of like when a DM pulls a power move at the start of a new game and tells everyone to pull out their finely crafted character sheet and put it in front of them. Then with a devilish smirk tells everyone to pass the sheets over to the guy to his left. Enjoy your new character people!

That one always amused me, but you can only do it once really, and retain it's impact.

[Carl Flaherty]

Lisa Stevens wrote:

Core wrote:

Making the following round based off of this round compounds the problem. We are essentially voting on the same round twice, since the initial ideas will sell votes, not a dry stat-block. I can write down the names of four of the entries now and practically guarantee they will be in round 4 because of that. Also if they are forced to use the same villain in round 5, it would give them a huge advantage there as well.

We have a cunning plan to make this issue not as much of a problem. Stay tuned!

-Lisa

Given that you have the demented minds of James Jacobs, Eric Mona, and Sean K Reynolds available to you, I expect that it will be cunning indeed. :D

[Neil Spicer]

Matthew Morris wrote:

Neil, I didn't enter on 'a lark'....If I were to win this, I'd work on the best project I could....The 'wouldn't freelance' part was snark. You give me a job, I do it the best I can....So please, don't think that I'm blowing this off. I respect the hobby...

Thank you for clarifying that. I was worried about you, man. It's hard to tell your snark apart from your seriousness sometimes. But I should realize that given the medium we're using to communicate.

Matthew Morris wrote:

I hate deadlines, but can work within them....I now hate word count limits...

I know your pain. My magic item entry was...199 words. My villain entry? Exactly 500 words. ;-)

Hang in there, man,
--Neil

[Eric Morton]

I don't think three days time was unreasonable for the assignment. And I certainly hope people aren't thinking of me as a contestant who slapped something together at the last minute. If I fail, I'd much rather be remembered as the guy who tried - with deliberation and forethought - to do WAY too much in 500 words.

Aelfric Dream-Slayer; written not because the concept was easy, but because the concept was hard. Vote Aelfric!

[Hal Maclean]

Just curious since I didn't read the rules for this round and I'm not even sure if they were posted in public view. Where more exotic villain concepts (like intelligent items) forbidden? I must confess I expected to see something completely off the wall.

I liked the otyugh quite a bit but I thought there'd be more.

[William Senn]

Hal Maclean wrote:

Just curious since I didn't read the rules for this round and I'm not even sure if they were posted in public view. Where more exotic villain concepts (like intelligent items) forbidden? I must confess I expected to see something completely off the wall.

I liked the otyugh quite a bit but I thought there'd be more.

Round 2 Rules

[Vic Wertz]

TerraNova wrote:

3 days was tough - but fair. I would have liked to have at least one weekend day in there, but I won't complain.

If we gave weekends to the contestants for writing, that would force the judges—who are generously donating their time—to do their part during the workweek. Not a good answer.

If we gave Saturday to the contestants, and Sunday to the judges, that would force the web team to come in on weekends to handle the transition. Also not good.

Thus, the contestants get the weekdays, and the judges get the weekends.

[Chris Mortika]

Hal Maclean wrote:

Were more exotic villain concepts (like intelligent items) forbidden?

From the Rules:

"Q5: I think that villains should have opposable thumbs and pass for humanoid—is that a restriction?
Nope. This thing is wide open. Your villain can be monstrous or humanoid or whatever. Those design choices are up to you, so long as you actually create a "villain" as defined above."

[roguerouge]

I think a few threads have had posts disappointed with some of the descriptions of the villains. There's a lot of variety within humanity. Avoiding the "we get it: she's hot" comment seemed to be a problem for several writers. Was it a problem last year?

[Stefan Schulz]

Vic Wertz wrote:

If we gave weekends to the contestants for writing, that would force the judges—who are generously donating their time—to do their part during the workweek. Not a good answer.

If we gave Saturday to the contestants, and Sunday to the judges, that would force the web team to come in on weekends to handle the transition. Also not good.

Thus, the contestants get the weekdays, and the judges get the weekends.

Good reason, as I said I would have liked it this way, not that it would necessarily have been a workable alternative. ;)

Besides, and yes, this stings a little: We could have been confident enough in our items to have a villain ready for submission on day 1.

[Carl Flaherty]

Vic Wertz wrote:

TerraNova wrote:

3 days was tough - but fair. I would have liked to have at least one weekend day in there, but I won't complain.

If we gave weekends to the contestants for writing, that would force the judges—who are generously donating their time—to do their part during the workweek. Not a good answer.

If we gave Saturday to the contestants, and Sunday to the judges, that would force the web team to come in on weekends to handle the transition. Also not good.

Thus, the contestants get the weekdays, and the judges get the weekends.

Not to mention, as far as I understand, freelance writing really is somewhat like the conditions of the contest.

[Russ Taylor]

Lord Fyre wrote:

Not to mention, as far as I understand, freelance writing really is somewhat like the conditions of the contest.

Ohhh yeah. Writing under deadlines, to a rough spec, with only a vague idea what your audience/editor wants to see...it's got a lot in common with freelance.

[Kyr]

I don't like to be negative, especially regarding other peoples work, but I was disappointed in the villains in general.

I didn't think all of them were bad. Some of them were perfectly fine encounters, and some of them had some interesting imagery - but none of them were villains, none of them were even encounters I would bother to use.

Mostly though I was surprised at that only a couple even made any sense, they were little more than just weird NPCs. Of course it may be that I am a bit bitter - and even if I had advanced I concede that I may not have been able to write them up as well, which is obviously critical in a contest like this. But I liked ALL of my villain ideas better and some of mine were pretty cliche.

I just wish I could of seen one or two where my reaction was, "Now thats cool," or, "I wish I had thought of that."

Hopefully some of the other rounds will be more fun to read.

[Zombieneighbours]

roguerouge wrote:

I think a few threads have had posts disappointed with some of the descriptions of the villains. There's a lot of variety within humanity. Avoiding the "we get it: she's hot" comment seemed to be a problem for several writers. Was it a problem last year?

I actually agree with you, i would like to see more variaty of appearance also, for both men and woman.

[roguerouge]

Russ Taylor wrote:

Lord Fyre wrote:

Not to mention, as far as I understand, freelance writing really is somewhat like the conditions of the contest.

Ohhh yeah. Writing under deadlines, to a rough spec, with only a vague idea what your audience/editor wants to see...it's got a lot in common with freelance.

One time, I had to thoroughly re-write an investigative journalism piece 7 times in 5 days as new info came in. That was stressful.

[Jason Nelson]

I had a thought this morning about what makes a good villain.

A good villain needs to be connected to its background - that gives him/her/it a sense of place, a context so that their villainy is meaningful and not simply arbitrary.

I think my villain last year was weak in this area - I had intentionally designed Avinash to be a free-floating villain that could be thrown against the party anytime, anywhere, but his lack of being tied to any real tangible place (other than the Abyss) I think hurt his credibility.

On the other hand, a good villain must NOT be tied to its background.

It can't be tied to a specific location. If the villain can't, won't, or simply doesn't leave that area, it's not a villain, because the PCs can just leave and the villain's story is over. A villain needs to have the ability to move, follow, and react to PCs once it leaves its origin story behind. Yes, he's the tragic ghost of Castle Sorrow who turned to evil because of yadda yadda yadda... but what happens when the PCs leave Castle Sorrow or decide not to go there in the first place? If the villain stays there, he's not a good villain. He's just an encounter. An interesting encounter, hopefully, but not a villain.

So a villain needs some kind of mobility or reach beyond the confines of the backstory. Either reaching out and expanding (or drawing other things in), or being able to move and go other places.

It's not just physical location, though, it is also about story. If the villain is only villainous within the limits of his backstory, he's a pretty thin villain. He needs to be able to do original and inventive things. He may have a schtick, but he can't be Johnny One-Note. The villain needs to have things to do that are villainous even if the PCs ignore the adventure hooks (which are tied to his background).

It's like a superhero movie. You tell the origin story and set up a conflict related to that origin in the first movie. If you wanna have a sequel, though, you can't just keep going back to the same well. Sure, your sequels can play off of as-yet-unexplored parts of the hero's origin, variations on a theme, but for a hero to have staying power he must have some kind of growth and evolution beyond his origins. Same goes for a good villain.

Anyway, I don't know if that's any great insight, but just a few thoughts.

[Charles Evans 25]

(edited)
Comparisons between the villains' round of this year's contest with the villains round of last years contest are to an extent flawed I believe; The villains' round last year was the THIRD round of the contest and the requirement to include stat blocks (and lack of word ceiling, I think) meant people could say as much as they wanted*; furthermore the second round had already seen the disappearance of a number of contestants, provided motivation (in the form of severe criticism from judges and posters in some cases) for a number of the survivors to sharpen up their acts, and given those who did make it into the villains round a certain amount more experience and confidence in writing.
Comparing this year's villains' round to the last year's countries' round would perhaps be fairer - certainly in similarities that some of the posters seem to have turned in entries lacking in memorable features.

Offset against that, there is the fact that this year's entrants had last year's contest threads to read and learn from which might lead to some expectation of indefinably higher 'quality' in entry; then again, the voters have also had the chance to read and digest last year's contest, and adjust their attitudes accordingly. I believe that had I voted this time around on the same basis that I did for last year's villains, several of this year's contestants might have had a better chance of one of my votes.

Edit:
*Not quite correct as it turns out. See Russ' post below.

[Russ Taylor]

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

The villains' round last year was the THIRD round of the contest and the requirement to include stat blocks (and lack of word ceiling, I think) meant people could say as much as they wanted

The stat block had no word count limit, but we were cautioned to not explain the villain in the stat block. The villain's text was limited to the same 500 words as this year.

[Charles Evans 25]

Russ Taylor wrote:

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

The villains' round last year was the THIRD round of the contest and the requirement to include stat blocks (and lack of word ceiling, I think) meant people could say as much as they wanted

The stat block had no word count limit, but we were cautioned to not explain the villain in the stat block. The villain's text was limited to the same 500 words as this year.

Thank you for the correction. :)

[Chris Mortika]

Jason Nelson wrote:

On the other hand, a good villain must NOT be tied to its background.

It can't be tied to a specific location. If the villain can't, won't, or simply doesn't leave that area, it's not a villain, because the PCs can just leave and the villain's story is over. A villain needs to have the ability to move, follow, and react to PCs once it leaves its origin story behind.

Ringwraiths, perhaps?

[Charles Evans 25]

Russ:
Just how much of a difference do you think it makes to what you can do with the word-count when there is the stat block alongside, which will (in theory) make some things (race, alignment, spells typically prepared, favourite weapon for example) obvious?

[Jason Nelson]

Chris Mortika wrote:

Jason Nelson wrote:

On the other hand, a good villain must NOT be tied to its background.

It can't be tied to a specific location. If the villain can't, won't, or simply doesn't leave that area, it's not a villain, because the PCs can just leave and the villain's story is over. A villain needs to have the ability to move, follow, and react to PCs once it leaves its origin story behind.

Ringwraiths, perhaps?

Sure, potentially. The Nazgul are an interesting example, because they are simultaneously GREAT villains (in terms of being threatening, memorable, able to come back again and again, follow the PCs in different guises, and even take on different approaches - solitary hunters, mass combatants, battlefield generals, ground troops, flying troops), and TERRIBLE villains, because as written they are absolute slaves to Sauron's will. That is, they aren't really villains at all; they are just extensions of Sauron as a villain. They are super-awesome minions... but just minions.

The Witch-King is unique among them as he is eventually spun out into having at least some independent will and intellect, but the rest of the other Nazgul are really just unkillable terrifying mooks with a great backstory. They fulfill all of the qualifications of being great villains except having some kind of personality.

Now, if you buy some of Iron Crown's Middle Earth Role-Playing products, the Nazgul there are much more highly developed, with elaborate histories and with those you can certainly use them much more effectively as independent villains, which is appropriate, because MERP presents them as super-powerful NPCs, not merely as Sauron's super-slaves. If you want to push Sauron a bit more into the background and let the Nazgul do their thing as mostly independent agents, then they become great villains.

In fact, in a massive 2nd Ed campaign I ran that lasted 7 years of real time, adapted versions of the Nazgul served as some of the primary villains, and I thought it worked very well.

[Set]

Jason Nelson wrote:

Sure, potentially. The Nazgul are an interesting example, because they are simultaneously GREAT villains (in terms of being threatening, memorable, able to come back again and again, follow the PCs in different guises, and even take on different approaches - solitary hunters, mass combatants, battlefield generals, ground troops, flying troops), and TERRIBLE villains, because as written they are absolute slaves to Sauron's will. That is, they aren't really villains at all; they are just extensions of Sauron as a villain. They are super-awesome minions... but just minions.

The Nazgul are prime candidates for the Eberron treatment. Move the 'god' (in this case, Sauron) into the background, a mythic figure who may or may not really exist. The Ringwraiths change from fairly generic manifestations of Sauron's will to independent menaces in their own right, who may claim to serve Sauron, but nobody knows for sure, and even the Nazgul will have never *met* Sauron.

[James Hunnicutt]

Jason Nelson wrote:

A good villain needs to be connected to its background - that gives him/her/it a sense of place, a context so that their villainy is meaningful and not simply arbitrary.

I couldn't agree more.

Also, I really think there is a lot of value in a villain who is somehow tied to the PCs, via history or otherwise. That was why I like Sharina so much: she latches onto the heroes and plagues them for a while, until they figure it out and deal with her directly.

[Russ Taylor]

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

Russ:

Just how much of a difference do you think it makes to what you can do with the word-count when there is the stat block alongside, which will (in theory) make some things (race, alignment, spells typically prepared, favourite weapon for example) obvious?

Honestly, very little. Looking over mine, I'd say I saved these 9 words, the text other than that stands without the stat block.

Male Advanced Four-Armed Sahuagin Paladin of Tyranny 8

[James Hunnicutt]

Russ Taylor wrote:

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

Russ:

Just how much of a difference do you think it makes to what you can do with the word-count when there is the stat block alongside, which will (in theory) make some things (race, alignment, spells typically prepared, favourite weapon for example) obvious?

Honestly, very little. Looking over mine, I'd say I saved these 9 words, the text other than that stands without the stat block.

Male Advanced Four-Armed Sahuagin Paladin of Tyranny 8

I loved Seskadrin.

[St. James]

Here is a thought. There has naturally been a lot of debate on what makes a successful entry; I have finaly found my answer. When I read the reviews there are some characters that didn't initially grade that high with the judges but are receiving a lot of comments regarding future use in home games. To me if a character finds its way into a bunch of home games then it must be successful. It would be interested to know 6 months from now how many of the characters are actually utilized by readers but of course there is really no way of knowing.